billy the squid wrote...
1) Please illuminate for me if I want to take a healer, who isn't Anders, and am not a mage myself I can take?
2)Action orientated combat? As in repeatedly hammering A and waiting for timers to cool down, whilst wave upon wave of enemies was thrown at me whilst I attempted to move anywhere within the city.
3)the skill tree remains largely the same, the differences I felt were largely cosmetic as the limitations applied by levels and points placed within the tree remained.
4)Personal? As in the introduction where I had no clue who anyone was, nor did I feel the need to care when one individual was killed.
5)Friendship and Rivalry system, badly executed, I should not get rivalry points for being an arse. I prefered the DAO system, despite being open to abuse. Yet, the problems stems as well from the move to diplomatic, sarcastic and angry response which just over simplifies everything and didn't improve on the dialogue system in DAO.
6)develops over time, As in the game won't let you engage in conversation until it wants you to and the romance is culminated in Act 2.
1. You don't -need- a healer by any means. If you want someone specialised in healing tagging along, that's up to you. It's certainly a great tool. But it's not necessary - instead you could have yet another tank to soak up damage, another damage dealer that helps remove those things that kill you faster (thus removing any potential future damage you would've taken with a healer in the party) or a crowd controller that can utterly disable the enemies instead. If your strategy absolutely requires a healer, yes, you're kinda stuck with Anders. But that's your choice of strategy, it's never forced on you to the manner it was in DAO.
2. Honestly, the combat is pretty much the same in both games aside from how much more responsive and fast your character moves in DA2. Though I agree totally that there are too many random battles in the game. They kinda removed the massive enemy sinks from DAO where you met enemy upon enemy for 30 minutes on end, and instead spread all those fights out over the entire game. Less combat in general would be nice, I agree.
3. It's better though, but I agree it's too limiting.
4. I'm guessing that's referring to the more down-to-earth plotline. And I sure know I enjoyed it. Would've enjoyed it far more if it got more development time, I'm sure. Like most things in DA2, I totally see what they were gunning for and love the idea, yet don't like how everything turned out =\\
5. Both systems are bad in their own way, some kind of compromise would be great. It's nice to be able to get liked and/or respected in different ways with every NPC - develop the relations in branching ways - instead of simply having a like/dislike thing going on. It's kind of ridiculous how everyone likes you almost no matter what you say, as long as you don't ignore them indeed, though.
6. I don't see how the romance is culminated in act 2, since the final love talks are act 3-specific. If anything, one of the things I really liked about DA2's romances is how everything didn't end the moment you slept with each other. I've always had an issue with that in BioWare games, how it's like sleeping with someone is the final answer to everything and there's nothing past that.
In fact it's over TWICE as good as DA:O because it's had more then twice the development cycle.
But reused dungeons? Yeah DAO did too (playing it right now), all games do, but not to the extent DA2 did. Either DA2 suffered because of it's short dev cycle or it was just shoddy work. I prefer to give BioWare the benefit of the doubt and say it's due to too short a dev cycle. And I haven't even gotten into the details of the game, say easter eggs, hidden rooms, description on items instead of just, "ring" or "pendant." 
Retour en haut
